Austerity
-
Well ladies and gentlemen, it looks like bad news for our cousins in France.
Sarcozy is out in favor of, get this, aneven more left wing party.
It appears austerity is being rejected all across europe in favor of even more uncontrolled spending and more free shit for the voters.
Also to sweeten the chamber pot, even higher taxes for the evil corporations.
Sound like anyone here in the u s of a?
Bonsoir mes amis .
WSS
-
Well ladies and gentlemen, it looks like bad news for our cousins in France.
Sarcozy is out in favor of, get this, aneven more left wing party.
It appears austerity is being rejected all across europe in favor of even more uncontrolled spending and more free shit for the voters.
Also to sweeten the chamber pot, even higher taxes for the evil corporations.
Sound like anyone here in the u s of a?
Bonsoir mes amis .
WSS
Well ladies and gentlemen, it looks like bad news for our cousins in France.
Sarcozy is out in favor of, get this, aneven more left wing party.
It appears austerity is being rejected all across europe in favor of even more uncontrolled spending and more free shit for the voters.
Also to sweeten the chamber pot, even higher taxes for the evil corporations.
Sound like anyone here in the u s of a?
Bonsoir mes amis .
WSS
BTW Notice how votes can go when most of the population doesn't contribute?
What was that old joke defining a democracy as 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner?
WSS
-
Well ladies and gentlemen, it looks like bad news for our cousins in France.
Sarcozy is out in favor of, get this, aneven more left wing party.
It appears austerity is being rejected all across europe in favor of even more uncontrolled spending and more free shit for the voters.
Also to sweeten the chamber pot, even higher taxes for the evil corporations.
Sound like anyone here in the u s of a?
Bonsoir mes amis .
WSS
Well ladies and gentlemen, it looks like bad news for our cousins in France.
Sarcozy is out in favor of, get this, aneven more left wing party.
It appears austerity is being rejected all across europe in favor of even more uncontrolled spending and more free shit for the voters.
Also to sweeten the chamber pot, even higher taxes for the evil corporations.
Sound like anyone here in the u s of a? Bonsoir mes amis .WSS
Same thing with the insane Greeks.
Just a matter of time before it occurs more overtly here. Tick tock Tick tock
-
Well ladies and gentlemen, it looks like bad news for our cousins in France.
Sarcozy is out in favor of, get this, aneven more left wing party.
It appears austerity is being rejected all across europe in favor of even more uncontrolled spending and more free shit for the voters.
Also to sweeten the chamber pot, even higher taxes for the evil corporations.
Sound like anyone here in the u s of a? Bonsoir mes amis .WSS
Same thing with the insane Greeks.
Just a matter of time before it occurs more overtly here. Tick tock Tick tock
Same thing with the insane Greeks.
Just a matter of time before it occurs more overtly here. Tick tock Tick tock
Barack Obama, le Joker socialiste
-
I don't think you've done a good job of explaining what's going on over there, Steve. I think you've just crammed what's going on into your ideological box.
-
I don't think you've done a good job of explaining what's going on over there, Steve. I think you've just crammed what's going on into your ideological box.
I don't think you've done a good job of explaining what's going on over there, Steve. I think you've just crammed what's going on into your ideological box.
Feel free to put a positive spin on it.
WSS
-
Oh, there's no positive spin for what's going on in Europe. It's more like, "Would you like to have genital herpes or AIDS?"
But the United States isn't Greece, as much as the Romney campaign and the right would like to dream. France isn't even Greece.
There is a real debate about the least worst way to get Europe through this mess, and the austerity debate - at least at an economic level - isn't one that has much to do with the "free goodies for voters" trope. It's about how you best get your economy out of an enormous hole.
-
Oh, there's no positive spin for what's going on in Europe. It's more like, "Would you like to have genital herpes or AIDS?"
But the United States isn't Greece, as much as the Romney campaign and the right would like to dream. France isn't even Greece.
There is a real debate about the least worst way to get Europe through this mess, and the austerity debate - at least at an economic level - isn't one that has much to do with the "free goodies for voters" trope. It's about how you best get your economy out of an enormous hole.
Oh, there's no positive spin for what's going on in Europe. It's more like, "Would you like to have genital herpes or AIDS?"
But the United States isn't Greece, as much as the Romney campaign and the right would like to dream. France isn't even Greece.
There is a real debate about the least worst way to get Europe through this mess, and the austerity debate - at least at an economic level - isn't one that has much to do with the "free goodies for voters" trope. It's about how you best get your economy out of an enormous hole.
Frankly abandoning the austerity program doesn't seem to be the best way to go about that.
And no matter which side of the ocean you're on the guy who wants to cut back on some perks will almost always be at a disadvantage.
WSS
-
Actually, lots of people think that's the best way to go about that - easing up on the austerity programs and focusing more on balance so as not to plunge fragile economies into depression. It's a rather large debate that's been going on for months/years. You may have read about it in the last few weeks as England fell back into recession in part, it seems, because of its austerity programs.
Or, simplified: Austerity cutbacks = lower income = lower spending = lower investment = lower tax revenue = slower economic growth = larger budget deficits = even bigger problem that you had when you started.
The flip side, of course, is the enormous debt load, and all of the problems that creates. Both must be addressed at once. It's the worst problem to have.
But all of these countries are in different situations. It's extremely complex. I'm just saying you shouldn't read the news about the French election and warp it so it fits into Steve idea # 3, which is that voters like free shit.
Yes, Sarkozy took a hit because of austerity cutbacks, which make people miserable. Yes, Obama is facing some of the same problems dealing with a barely improving economy and growing deficits. But the approach America has taken - spend government money capitalizing banks, spend on stimulus/tax cuts, and lower the price of money to stabilize the economy instead of cutting back and making the problem worse - is proving to be the right course. Costly, but right. The problem is getting a deal with the back half: lowering spending on entitlements, mostly health care, in the long run, and reforming the tax code.
They've fiddled around with this during the whole "grand bargain" episode, but couldn't come to an agreement. That's what needs to happen, and it's not going to happen in an election year. And the rightward shift of the Republican Party, with its freshly-minted Tea Party faction, who subsist on economic fairy tales, make compromise all the more difficult.
Spend now on safety net measures, invest in infrastructure and education, and get health care spending under control and reform the tax code. That's the game.
Or just talk about cutting rich people's taxes and sing America the Beautiful a lot.
-
No, you increase government spending during a downturn or a recession to help get you out of the downturn or recession, which helps you get out of debt.
Republican believe this too. Just not when a Democrat is president. You might remember this. Or this.
0
Heck, I realize you think that I will dissolve into tears because you found something stupid did george w bush did.
Sorry, I thought that was a horse shit plan then.
At one time everyone thought the sky rocketing housing prices would continue forever.
Therefore debt meant nothing.
Maybe you and Friedman think there is a bubble right around the corner that will bring us all back to square 1.
I would guess that the truth is much more cynical.
Pretend that we can afford to give everybody everything and after the election?
Who cares?
And by the way people are miserable. A couple hundred bucks 1 way or the other won't buy happiness, just votes.
WSS
-
I am ok with gov't spend tons of money during a recision/depression(later part of Bush era/Obama era), to help stimulate a slow weak economy, the only problem is during times of growth they should be able to cut back in certain areas but never do(later part of Clinton era and early Bush era).
-
>>No, you increase government spending during a downturn or a recession to help get you out of the downturn or recession, which helps you get out of debt.
Republican believe this too. Just not when a Democrat is president. You might remember>>
I do remember. It was wrong then and it's wrong now.
The question I have is, "What happens to government spending once the downturn or recession has been reversed?"
Answer: it increases because, among other things, there is an assumption that tax revenues will increase and - well - our money is really their money - regardles of which Party is in 'power'.
Like Heck hinted at but would never admit, there isn't all that much difference among the 2 major partys any way.
-
Let's just agree to disagree then. You guys both seem to be against the entire concept of fiscal stimulus, which is bizarre. There isn't a strain of economics - except perhaps the bizarre one Ron Paul believes in - that doesn't believe in the idea of fiscal stimulus during economic downturns. We have all sorts of mechanisms to make recessions less harsh, and shorter, and to make people's lives better. They cost money, but they're worth doing if done correctly.
One of the points of widespread agreement you'll find in the Frontline special, on both the left and the right, is that we were certainly headed towards a global depression had the Bush team and later the Obama team not taken the steps they did. They didn't always make the right choices, but this was also unprecedented stuff and they were basically making it up as they went along, and usually with little time to decide what to do. All those decisions will all be studied for years and years.
As for the links, the point of showing that Bush believed in stimulus and Republicans voted for it en masse, and as recently as a few years ago, is to point out the hypocrisy of Republicans and their current complaints about fiscal stimulus.
And no, John, I don't agree that there's no real difference between the parties. There are countless differences. They may be closer to each other than the opposing parties in France or Germany or places like that, but they're hardly the same.
-
>>And no, John, I don't agree that there's no real difference between the parties. There are countless differences. They may be closer to each other than the opposing parties in France or Germany or places like that, but they're hardly the same.>>
There might be some difference in the 'sizzle' but the fundamental piece of meat is the same, IMHO.
Why shouldn't I believe there has been no better confirmer of Bush's policies and practices than Barak Obama? I don't agree with lots of what Bush did but, it appears to me, Obama has rubber stamped - or aggrivated and extended - those practices.
Material differences are really few and far between.
-
I would agree that a lot of the Bush war/security policies were continued by Obama, but some weren't. Which did you want to see repealed?
-
I would agree that a lot of the Bush war/security policies were continued by Obama, but some weren't. Which did you want to see repealed?
I would agree that a lot of the Bush war/security policies were continued by Obama, but some weren't. Which did you want to see repealed?
Some I like, it's just that - to some people - it is now OK. When Bush was in the driver's seat however, it was a war crazed, oil driven maniac.
I'd like to start with repealing the government's ability to capture and indefinitely detail a US citizen with out charge. In short, reinstate the spirit - I don't want to get involved in a technical discussion of what the definition of 'is' is - Writ of Habeous Corpus (sp).
To me this is the most aggregious element of an already overreaching government intrustion. If effect, one can be detained for 'thought', not necessarily 'action'. Political prisoners, if you will.
-
Let's just agree to disagree then. You guys both seem to be against the entire concept of fiscal stimulus, which is bizarre. There isn't a strain of economics - except perhaps the bizarre one Ron Paul believes in - that doesn't believe in the idea of fiscal stimulus during economic downturns. We have all sorts of mechanisms to make recessions less harsh, and shorter, and to make people's lives better. They cost money, but they're worth doing if done correctly.
One of the points of widespread agreement you'll find in the Frontline special, on both the left and the right, is that we were certainly headed towards a global depression had the Bush team and later the Obama team not taken the steps they did. They didn't always make the right choices, but this was also unprecedented stuff and they were basically making it up as they went along, and usually with little time to decide what to do. All those decisions will all be studied for years and years.
As for the links, the point of showing that Bush believed in stimulus and Republicans voted for it en masse, and as recently as a few years ago, is to point out the hypocrisy of Republicans and their current complaints about fiscal stimulus.
And no, John, I don't agree that there's no real difference between the parties. There are countless differences. They may be closer to each other than the opposing parties in France or Germany or places like that, but they're hardly the same.
Let's just agree to disagree then. You guys both seem to be against the entire concept of fiscal stimulus, which is bizarre. There isn't a strain of economics - except perhaps the bizarre one Ron Paul believes in - that doesn't believe in the idea of fiscal stimulus during economic downturns. We have all sorts of mechanisms to make recessions less harsh, and shorter, and to make people's lives better. They cost money, but they're worth doing if done correctly.
One of the points of widespread agreement you'll find in the Frontline special, on both the left and the right, is that we were certainly headed towards a global depression had the Bush team and later the Obama team not taken the steps they did. They didn't always make the right choices, but this was also unprecedented stuff and they were basically making it up as they went along, and usually with little time to decide what to do. All those decisions will all be studied for years and years.
As for the links, the point of showing that Bush believed in stimulus and Republicans voted for it en masse, and as recently as a few years ago, is to point out the hypocrisy of Republicans and their current complaints about fiscal stimulus.
And no, John, I don't agree that there's no real difference between the parties. There are countless differences. They may be closer to each other than the opposing parties in France or Germany or places like that, but they're hardly the same.
Fiscal stimulus done properly can be a useful tool. In fact you will see that Republicans in general begrudingly accept this at the beginning of Obamas term with the stimulus package. However, that whole package was pure crap, it was an unfocused pile of garbage. It was typical liberal production, lets give away a whole bunch of money without any real rhyme or reason and hope is helps. This is why people here are sick of what the Fed government is doing. Then when one group tries to curb spedning the other side offers up like 200 million or something and act like they have done something really great. The left could probably sell tax increases a whole lot better to the American public if they came out and said, look, we are going to cut 1.5 trillion or more out of the budget, we agree it needs to be done, but in turn we request a tax increase to help us through this. But instead what we get is rich people you need to pay more money(while about 48% of eligible tax payers pay no fed income tax). Even tho the very rich pay the largest share of the taxes already. And whether you like it or not, we are heading down the path of Greece, Spain, Ireland etc when it comes to our debt situation. The people in Greece have been coddled too long as is most of Europe and now they are reaping the cost of all that government love. Deny the plebians their bread and you will have riots on your hands.
-
I'm not saying the stimulus was perfect, but the idea that the "whole package was pure crap, it was an unfocused pile of garbage" is ridiculous. What parts of it do you think were pure crap?
As for this: "The left could probably sell tax increases a whole lot better to the American public if they came out and said, look, we are going to cut 1.5 trillion or more out of the budget, we agree it needs to be done, but in turn we request a tax increase to help us through this."
...Isn't that sort of what the President did? Except they were offering more than 1.5 trillion. You just seem to disagree that the wealthy are the ones who should be taxed. You'd rather the people who don't pay any federal income tax - the poor, the lower middle class - get taxed instead.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login